This actually isn't true. Chris Matthews yesterday grilled pundits asking why all the initial exit polls still had Obama up. This isn't conspiracy theory and the exit polls didn't match.
The idea that Obama's camp had internal polling of being behind 1-2 points also isn't true because it's been widely reported that they were thinking they were up by 11 points.
Nor does it float the idea that they would do worse in rural areas. According the the vote counts, they actually did better (since this is where most were hand-counted) and in the Urban areas where they were expected to do better (where the majority was counted by the Diebold machines) he was down by 7% points.
None of this makes sense. This goes beyond conspiracy theory or people being sore losers.
It doesn't matter if they won the same # of delegates. What was at stake was the momentum and the perception of winning. And now this has suddenly raised two issues that only help Clinton more:
1. America's not ready to elect a black President (if they'd lie to the pollsters in New Hampshire, then clearly we're not ready). Despite the fact that Iowa DID elect him in an OPEN caucus. 2. Women are rallying behind Hillary in droves. Which I don't believe either. The crying incident couldn't possibly have swayed that many voters. People either like or don't like Hillary. If they like Bill they tend to like Hillary so gender has very little to do with it.
Through these irregular voting results the entire dialgoue has now been shifted to race and gender -- none of which were issues before.
All distractions and smokescreens. In my opinion, it's the only way the Clintons or Bush's can win elections. They're not strong enough candidates to win on their own.
Obama will win Nevada because it's an open caucus (no machines). Even though he's widely ahead in SC just as he was in NH, I don't have confidence in the vote counting because as far as I know machines are used there.
www.bradblog has posted lots on all of this not to mention how no one knows anything about LHS Associates (the ones who program the cards for the machines). If there is no accountability and we're not even asking questions about the people who work there, bi-partisan protocols they have in place, etc., then what's the point of voting?
Hacking is a possibility, but what is more realistic is someone taking a bribe who programs the cards.
This says it all about how undetectable it is once they're programmed.
Kristoph,
This actually isn't true. Chris Matthews yesterday grilled pundits asking why all the initial exit polls still had Obama up. This isn't conspiracy theory and the exit polls didn't match.
The idea that Obama's camp had internal polling of being behind 1-2 points also isn't true because it's been widely reported that they were thinking they were up by 11 points.
Nor does it float the idea that they would do worse in rural areas. According the the vote counts, they actually did better (since this is where most were hand-counted) and in the Urban areas where they were expected to do better (where the majority was counted by the Diebold machines) he was down by 7% points.
None of this makes sense. This goes beyond conspiracy theory or people being sore losers.
It doesn't matter if they won the same # of delegates. What was at stake was the momentum and the perception of winning. And now this has suddenly raised two issues that only help Clinton more:
1. America's not ready to elect a black President (if they'd lie to the pollsters in New Hampshire, then clearly we're not ready). Despite the fact that Iowa DID elect him in an OPEN caucus.
2. Women are rallying behind Hillary in droves. Which I don't believe either. The crying incident couldn't possibly have swayed that many voters. People either like or don't like Hillary. If they like Bill they tend to like Hillary so gender has very little to do with it.
Through these irregular voting results the entire dialgoue has now been shifted to race and gender -- none of which were issues before.
All distractions and smokescreens. In my opinion, it's the only way the Clintons or Bush's can win elections. They're not strong enough candidates to win on their own.
Obama will win Nevada because it's an open caucus (no machines). Even though he's widely ahead in SC just as he was in NH, I don't have confidence in the vote counting because as far as I know machines are used there.
www.bradblog has posted lots on all of this not to mention how no one knows anything about LHS Associates (the ones who program the cards for the machines). If there is no accountability and we're not even asking questions about the people who work there, bi-partisan protocols they have in place, etc., then what's the point of voting?
Hacking is a possibility, but what is more realistic is someone taking a bribe who programs the cards.
This says it all about how undetectable it is once they're programmed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkKdJoWG3qQ&feature=related
Slashdot Mirror
Kristoph,
This actually isn't true. Chris Matthews yesterday grilled pundits asking why all the initial exit polls still had Obama up. This isn't conspiracy theory and the exit polls didn't match.
The idea that Obama's camp had internal polling of being behind 1-2 points also isn't true because it's been widely reported that they were thinking they were up by 11 points.
Nor does it float the idea that they would do worse in rural areas. According the the vote counts, they actually did better (since this is where most were hand-counted) and in the Urban areas where they were expected to do better (where the majority was counted by the Diebold machines) he was down by 7% points.
None of this makes sense. This goes beyond conspiracy theory or people being sore losers.
It doesn't matter if they won the same # of delegates. What was at stake was the momentum and the perception of winning. And now this has suddenly raised two issues that only help Clinton more:
1. America's not ready to elect a black President (if they'd lie to the pollsters in New Hampshire, then clearly we're not ready). Despite the fact that Iowa DID elect him in an OPEN caucus.
2. Women are rallying behind Hillary in droves. Which I don't believe either. The crying incident couldn't possibly have swayed that many voters. People either like or don't like Hillary. If they like Bill they tend to like Hillary so gender has very little to do with it.
Through these irregular voting results the entire dialgoue has now been shifted to race and gender -- none of which were issues before.
All distractions and smokescreens. In my opinion, it's the only way the Clintons or Bush's can win elections. They're not strong enough candidates to win on their own.
Obama will win Nevada because it's an open caucus (no machines). Even though he's widely ahead in SC just as he was in NH, I don't have confidence in the vote counting because as far as I know machines are used there.
www.bradblog has posted lots on all of this not to mention how no one knows anything about LHS Associates (the ones who program the cards for the machines). If there is no accountability and we're not even asking questions about the people who work there, bi-partisan protocols they have in place, etc., then what's the point of voting?
Hacking is a possibility, but what is more realistic is someone taking a bribe who programs the cards.
This says it all about how undetectable it is once they're programmed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkKdJoWG3qQ&feature=related
Kristoph, This actually isn't true. Chris Matthews yesterday grilled pundits asking why all the initial exit polls still had Obama up. This isn't conspiracy theory and the exit polls didn't match. The idea that Obama's camp had internal polling of being behind 1-2 points also isn't true because it's been widely reported that they were thinking they were up by 11 points. Nor does it float the idea that they would do worse in rural areas. According the the vote counts, they actually did better (since this is where most were hand-counted) and in the Urban areas where they were expected to do better (where the majority was counted by the Diebold machines) he was down by 7% points. None of this makes sense. This goes beyond conspiracy theory or people being sore losers. It doesn't matter if they won the same # of delegates. What was at stake was the momentum and the perception of winning. And now this has suddenly raised two issues that only help Clinton more: 1. America's not ready to elect a black President (if they'd lie to the pollsters in New Hampshire, then clearly we're not ready). Despite the fact that Iowa DID elect him in an OPEN caucus. 2. Women are rallying behind Hillary in droves. Which I don't believe either. The crying incident couldn't possibly have swayed that many voters. People either like or don't like Hillary. If they like Bill they tend to like Hillary so gender has very little to do with it. Through these irregular voting results the entire dialgoue has now been shifted to race and gender -- none of which were issues before. All distractions and smokescreens. In my opinion, it's the only way the Clintons or Bush's can win elections. They're not strong enough candidates to win on their own. Obama will win Nevada because it's an open caucus (no machines). Even though he's widely ahead in SC just as he was in NH, I don't have confidence in the vote counting because as far as I know machines are used there. www.bradblog has posted lots on all of this not to mention how no one knows anything about LHS Associates (the ones who program the cards for the machines). If there is no accountability and we're not even asking questions about the people who work there, bi-partisan protocols they have in place, etc., then what's the point of voting? Hacking is a possibility, but what is more realistic is someone taking a bribe who programs the cards. This says it all about how undetectable it is once they're programmed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkKdJoWG3qQ&feature=related